Navodiya v. No Frills #3912, 2017 HRTO 1108

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ashrafali Navodiya

Applicant

-and-

No Frills #3912

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: August 28, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1108

Indexed as: Navodiya v. No Frills #3912

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ashrafali Navodiya, Applicant

Michael Krylov, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 18, 2017.

2By Notice of Hearing dated March 30, 2017, the Tribunal scheduled this hearing for July 21, 2017. At the request of the respondent, the Tribunal rescheduled the hearing to one of the dates on which both parties were available. By Notice of Rescheduled Hearing dated April 19, 2017, the Tribunal advised the parties that the hearing was rescheduled to September 18, 2017.

3By Case Assessment Directions (“CADs”) dated August 10 and August 22, 2017, I advised the applicant that he had failed to file his pre-hearing documents and witness statements as required under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In the August 22, 2017 CAD, I directed the applicant to file his hearing materials and witness statements by 5 PM on August 28, 2017 or his Application would be dismissed as abandoned.

4On August 25, 2017, the applicant’s counsel copied the Tribunal on an email in which he sought the respondent’s consent to reschedule the hearing. On August 28, 2017, the applicant made a request to the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing. The reason provided for the request was that the applicant was in the process of seeking a copy of information he wishes to submit as evidence in his case. The applicant indicated that the respondent’s counsel had consented to the adjournment request.

findings

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the ten-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing (…) Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax, copied to the other parties.

6As the Practice Direction makes clear, the Tribunal grants adjournment requests made outside the 10-day period for rescheduling requests only in exceptional circumstances, even if both parties consent to the adjournment.

7In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used.

8An applicant’s failure to gather all necessary evidence in a timely way does not amount to the kind of “exceptional” circumstances that would lead the Tribunal to grant an adjournment request. The applicant and his counsel were aware of the date of the hearing as of April 19, 2017. Therefore, they had ample time to collect all relevant documentation in time for the hearing.

ORDER

9The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s adjournment request is denied. The hearing will proceed on September 18, 2017 as scheduled.

b. The applicant has filed a witness list and documents but no witness statements. The applicant must file complete and comprehensive witness statements, including a witness statement for himself, by 5 PM August 30, 2017. If he does not do so, he will not be permitted to call any witnesses at the hearing except with permission of the Tribunal (see 17.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure).